Jump to content

Talk:Christian apologetics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added 'aims to'

[edit]

Added 'aims to provide a rational basis' in the opening, to satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality policy. To say that it 'provides a rational basis' is to endorse the project. Saying apologists 'aim' to give a rational basis doesn't take a stand one way or the other, but adds a buffer of neutrality for those not Christian: Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.255.71 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Sorry about that, it took me longer to finish going over the other sections. I think we came to very similar conclusions - take a look at the new edit and see if you like those. I'm open to criticism/suggestions. Phyesalis (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical apologetics:

[edit]

Historical/legal/evidential apologetics:

[edit]

Creationist apologetics:

[edit]

General:

[edit]

Specific issues:

[edit]


I think the links offer some noteworty resources and should be kept. 128.205.191.55 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:External links. It is not the purpose of an External links section to provide a comprehensive list of "noteworthy resources". I've replaced the links with a link to the relevant category of the Open Directory Project, as suggested at Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember. EALacey 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a moderate amount of links that was shorter than the original but longer than the individuals who listed almost no links. In short, I offered a compromise. 128.205.191.57 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Earth creationists do not agree with the science of evolutionary biology." The sentence as it stands is a sweeping generalization, not all Old Earth creationists disagree, some disagree with the Darwinian concept of evolution, but maintain that aspects of evolution (microevolution) is verifiable true.
"The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution." The page is regarding Christian apologetics i.e Christian views and therefore the views of the scientific community seems irrelevant to the topic.
Compromise? Please advise of reasoning for revert. Gingabox 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking this in a 3 1/2 year old thread about WP:External links, when this topic has already been addressed in #Creationist claims below? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

[edit]

Much of this article is either unsourced, or original WP:Synthesis of Biblical passages. What remains is, almost-exclusively, cited to the primary sources of the apologists themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary biology is a science -- live with it

[edit]

Evolutionary biology is universally recognised within both science and philosophy of science as a subfield of the science of biology. That certain apologists don't like this does not change the fact. Attempts to give equal validity to creationism by attempting to reduce evolutionary biology to a mere "Darwinian concept" is against Wikipedia policy. See also WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, evolutionary biology is a universally recognized, however the particulars of evolution and the interpretation of data is not universally agreed upon even among evolutionary biologists. However, the "Darwinian concept of evolution" is not currently agreed upon universally. Please see Darwinism in which it is quoted "...Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period." Would you compromise on "Darwinism" rather than "Darwinian concept of evolution"? Gingabox (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a physicist who graduated magna cum laude, I laugh at the entire field of biology as nothing more than pseudo-scientific babble intended for the mass consumption of inferior minds that do not have the reasoning skills to conduct true scientific research. Your entire field is based on the observations of a lunatic from the 19th century. How about getting off of your collective bums and do some real research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.148.120 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a physicist, you are not qualified to judge biology's worth. Furthermore, given the fact that biology has produced predictable results, as well as actual physical products (such as vaccines, antibiotics, GMOs, the entirety of modern medicine), anyone with any sense of reason would be forced to brush you off as either a poorly-disguised troll or a sufferer of delusion.72.94.21.217 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist claims

[edit]

Before loading up the 'Creationist apologetics' section with every creationist argument in objections to evolution (and particularly ones not contained in current sources), I would remind editors that the more of this material that is added, the greater the imperative will be to give WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint, which is that these arguments are wholly without merit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would particularly suggest that editors take note of:

  1. Evolution of whales, There are gaps between land mammals and whales
  2. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution
  3. No macroevolution, There are barriers to large change, Small changes do not imply large changes

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would further point out that we have whole article (e.g. Objections to evolution, Flood geology, Creation geophysics & Creationist cosmologies) dealing specifically with creationist claims. Repeating them (and their scientific rebuttals) here would not appear to be productive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, the page is about Christian apologetics, thus the Christian viewpoint. The point then is to explain the viewpoint of Christian apologists. While I agree that the article does not need to be "loaded up with every argument" there should be a mention of the viewpoint when not included. i.e. there is an inclusion of anti-evolution and theistic evolution, but no mention of a middle ground opinion, thus WP:DUE weight has not been applied throughout. While you are certainly within your right to disagree and believe the argument to be "wholly without merit" it is irrelevant to the subject of the article itself as it is a belief of some Christian apologists. Sorry if I placed my post under the wrong heading, but please respond to the following:
"Old Earth creationists do not agree with the science of evolutionary biology." The sentence as it stands is a sweeping generalization. Not all Old Earth creationists disagree, some disagree with the Darwinian concept of evolution, but maintain that aspects of evolution (microevolution) is verifiable true.
"The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution." Again, the page is regarding Christian apologetics i.e Christian views and therefore the views of the scientific community seems irrelevant to the topic.
I understand you have a viewpoint, but why no compromise? Please advise of reasoning for revert. Gingabox (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is not a single (definite-article/"the") Christian viewpoint.
  2. If Creationists' (generally inexpert) views of science are relevant, then so too are scientists' (generally expert) views of Creationist apologetics.
  3. Creationist claims about science are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the relevant academic community (i.e. the scientific community). Per WP:DUE: pages about minority viewpoints "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
  4. There really is no "middle ground" between accepting evolution and rejecting it.
  5. In any case, your emphasis on the views of a single, relatively minor creationist, Fazale Rana, would appear to be WP:UNDUE even looking exclusively at the Creationist (or even exclusively OEC) viewpoint. There are dozens of creationists more prominent.
  6. All creationists are anti-evolution. The term 'creationism' is itself a renaming of 'anti-evolution' (occurring in the early to mid 20th century) -- read the book The Creationists for details.
  7. Microevolution is still "the Darwinian concept of evolution", just acting within a species. See Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, No macroevolution, There are barriers to large change, Small changes do not imply large changes (cited above).
  8. That "The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution" is "relevant" as it demonstrates that the relevant experts consider the preceding views to be utterly without merit.
  9. You have failed to address my point that Wikipedia already has whole articles that deal with such claims in detail -- so there's neither need nor reason to attempt to reproduce this here.
  10. Finally, there already was a "compromise" -- the article didn't mention creationists' meritless claims here (and contented itself to simply mentioning creationists' disagreement with the age of the Earth and/or evolutionary biology), and so the article didn't need to state that the scientific community considers these claims to be meritless (let alone give detailed explanations why), let alone label these claims as "pseudoscience" (which, per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, would have been permissible).

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this section is badly in need of WP:SECONDARY sources, being cited (almost?) exclusively to primary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I never claimed there was a "the" as in unified one but a "the" as a group comprised under the subheading Christian apologists (plural)
  2. If scientists (expert) opinions are relevant to the specific topic of Christian apologetics and subtopic Creationist apologetics, then it stands to reason that to satisfy WP:DUE that one would need to put the Christian viewpoint on all science articles. Overkill, right? The proper place for the counter-view is as you noted at Objections to evolution.
  3. This would be true if the topic were evolution or Objections to evolution, but see above, it is overkill do I need to put a note saying the sky is blue? I hope not. How about a link to Objections to evolution at the top of the section and by that kill the entire discussion of evolution within the section? Is that a fair compromise?
  4. There is no middle ground between rejecting it and accepting it? Another sweeping generalization. Whether you accept it as valid or not, there are those who do hold a middle ground, embedding your opinion about it simply violates the neutrality of the article as relating to the beliefs that are being expressed by the apologists.
  5. Fazale Rana is a biochemist (a scientists) and is therefore, under your own definition and expert, is he not? However, my "insistence" was relegated to a single line using him as an example of a much greater subheading. The fact is there are a great number of Christians and Christian apologists (Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and others) who agree with him, but who do not write nearly as often on the topic as it relates to biology which makes him a valid source, whether we agree with his position or not.
  6. All creationists are anti-evolution again, see above. the term "evolution" is a general term under which there are multiple views (even within biology) of the actual mechanics (swapping, drift ect). These types of sweeping generalizations are not only inaccurate but generally inflammatory to those who hold the position that God created creatures with the capacity to adapt and evolve which is not the same as theistic evolution. You can not seriously say that because some people deny the premise of life from non-life that they are then opposed to evolution as a whole. It is a bold faced false statement, regardless of what one particular author might think about it. That is like saying that all scientists are atheists, which is demonstratively false.
  7. Conceded. Since I don't feel like getting into a battle of semantics.
  8. The notion that the world doesn't rest on the back of turtles is also wholly without merit, so have you put a science fact on the Hinduism article also? Again, maybe a link to the Objections to evolution is in order.
  9. I have addressed it now... see above
  10. I am fine with it contenting itself with mentioning it, as long as it mentions it in the correct way. To say that Creationists disagree with the science of evolution is to say that they disagree with the wholesale notion which I reiterate, is not accurate. You have resigned the "contenting" to generalizations and stereotypes. Gingabox (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


2: No, your claim is not a logical consequence of my argument. Creationism is a "tiny minority" viewpoint (per WP:DUE) in the scientific community, so need not be mentioned in scientific articles. And other than creationists, I don't think Christians have any major disagreements with science.
3: Read WP:DUE again -- I specifically cited the relevant passage, that explicitly states: that such articles "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
4: Please cite a reliable third party source for your claim that there is a "middle ground". My experience is that those claiming such a middle ground only accept a heavily neutered form of evolution (that fall far short of any articulation of the theory of evolution -- Darwin's original theory, the Modern evolutionary synthesis or any more modern expansion) that is impotent to challenge their religious preconceptions.
5: Fazale Rana is not a biologist, let alone one working in a field relevant to evolutionary biology. Therefore he is not "and expert [sic]" any more than an electrician is an expert on plumbing. Further, as far as I can tell, he has not worked even in the area of biochemistry for some time. Strobel and Craig are fellow creationists, so it's unsurprising that they agree with Rana.
6: In this context, "evolution" means the scientific theory of evolution, e.g. as articulated in the Modern evolutionary synthesis. All creationists reject this. If they didn't, they'd be theistic evolutionists. There is quite a bit of disagreement around the edges of this field, but the core theory is overwhelmingly accepted within the scientific community. As far as I know, nobody claims that genetic drift, or natural selection, etc, etc don't occur -- they just argue about their relative importance, particularly in specific areas.
8: "the Hinduism article" makes no mention of turtles -- so there's nothing for science to rebut.
10: Please list a creationist who fully agrees with the scientific theory of evolution (the scientific theory that is the basis for the scientific subfield of evolutionary biology).
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, let me rephrase it for clarity; they do not disagree with the 'science' of evolution, they disagree with the 'interpretation' that follows necessarily from the naturalistic presupposition. Why does this have to be a big debate, rather than simply finding a compromise to find a word to fit in before or after "science"?
4: A third party... sure I'll go track one down. The fact that the flood story is in the Bible and the divergence of species and sub-species necessitates that someone who believes the biblical story (i.e. a Christian) hold to some form of evolutionary middle ground, yet you want to force the issue. One does not have to agree with the theory of evolution (i.e. a particular model) to agree with the concept of evolution (i.e. biological change over time).
5: My fear is that you don't understand the position fully and are more interested in having your opinion shown rather than providing fair and balanced information. I didn't say Rana was a biologist, I said a biochemist... but that is neither here nor there, he is a scientist and more importantly a Christian apologist and Creationist, as are Stroble and Craig, which is the point of the subtopic and you have now confirmed this.
6: read below... the context does not imply that necessarily, it should be clarified.
10: Why would I do that? By "theory" you are asking me to point out creationists who fully agree with a particular model, which is what I just explained was not the case. The term evolution here does not necessitate that we are talking about one particular model because there are many models to choose from, even within secular science itself, so it is a loaded request. If you want me to find one who believes that God created "kinds" of life and then those "kinds" evolved, then I am willing to do so, because I am willing to bet that a majority of Christians hold to that premise. Again, I think you are propagating a stereotype of the view by being too general with your statements.
Also, since you made a point to note my failure to address the Objections to evolution, I would appreciate if you would address it. A link to it in the header of the section? Yay or nay? I am making every effort to compromise.
Gingabox (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. The (Darwinian) theory of evolution is the only "'science' of evolution" on the table with the scientific community. The last alternative, Lamarckism, died out decades ago.
  2. "divergence of species and sub-species necessitates that someone who believes the biblical story" is exactly the sort of "neutered" faux-evolution I was talking about above. It has no scientific acceptance.
  3. A biochemist has no expertise relevant to evolutionary biology -- and one who comes from a chemistry background (as Rana appears to have) may well not even had even exposure to that field.
  4. You need to accept it because this "one particular model" is the only model that has scientific support and is the basis of all evolutionary biology and much of biology in general. If you are talking about any other "model", you are quite simply not talking about "evolution" as the scientific field of biology means that term.
  5. You'd lose your bet that "a majority of Christians hold to that premise". Catholicism, which happens to be the largest Christian denomination, accepts the theory of evolution (see Catholic Church and evolution), and does not take the book of Genesis literally. The same is true for a number of other denominations (see Level of support for evolution).
  6. Re Objections to evolution -- will do. Will also add Flood geology.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, now how about a compromise on the language surrounding "disagree with the science of evolution." How about "disagree with the commonly accepted evolutionary model"? That seems to capture what you are getting at but is more clear as to what is being disagreed with.

Again... and I quote "[Darwinism]] is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow." If you are stating that there is only one model, then what is this "modern evolutionary theories" (plural)? While the term evolution is used scientifically to mean one thing, colloquially it can mean different things. I simply think it would be well to make it clear. I am not going to continue to debate on the rest, simply put I disagree, but it isn't important if there is a compromise on the point above and am a little tired of belaboring what should be an otherwise simple process. Also, if you want to make the point of what the Catholic Church believes, I suggest you read the Pope Benedict XVI and today section in which those views are "some theory of evolution" which is to say, not necessarily your preferred theory of evolution... the views within the Catholic Church are not entirely one sided as is true of every group. Gingabox (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "modern evolutionary theories" are the sequential expansions and refinements ('descendants' if you will) of Darwin's original theory (which, for example, did not include mutation, as genetics hadn't been discovered yet) -- it does not mean they are competing theories contemporary with each other (as each of them evolved into the next).
  2. No -- "disagree with the commonly accepted evolutionary model" is (i) flat-out wrong -- it is not merely "commonly accepted" it is the "only accepted". (ii) It is not a mere "model" it is a scientific theory. This puts it on the same level as the Theory of relativity -- at the apex of science. I think "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" is the correct wording & linking. This is what they are rejecting (and have been rejecting since the birth of the 'Anti-Evolution'/'Creationism' movement in the early 20th century).

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Exactly my point, there is Darwinian, neo-Darwinian etc... while you are aware of this, does not mean that every reader of Wikipedia is aware of this. You must be clear, not just correct.
  2. I can demonstrate that there are a number of models by simply pointing out two of them: The Recent African Origins (RAO) and Standard Neutral Model of Evolution (SNM), those are both models of evolution, yet one is more commonly accepted than the other. These are simply two among many others. The Modern Evolutionary synthesis is not a theory it is a synthesis that simply defines general concepts, ideas and it does not mean that it is the only one and only model. In fact, in the summary section #6 states, "...the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist." Which means that there is not one view on this aspect as of yet and there are competing, concurrent models. The article for the Modern evolutionary synthesis also states that it "provides a widely accepted account of evolution." It does not state that is "provides the only accepted account of evolution." Facts are facts: A theory can be thought of as a model... see Theory as a model which states "A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system." It is clear as day. This same quote appears at scientific theory under Theory as a model. So what you are proposing is not consistent nor does it seem to be the opinion of those editing the science theory page. What was rejected in history is not consistently rejected now so should not be in Creationist apologetics because it is not the one sided coin you would like it to be.Gingabox (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about they "reject naturalistic views of the origins of life"? Or something akin to that, because that is really what is at issue, not evolution in and of itself. The point of contention is typically life from non-life via natural mechanistic process which is not relegated to evolutionary biology. Gingabox (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. No Gingabox, you miss the point. They are different names for different stages of development of the same theory. There was Darwinian, there is neo-Darwinian (at least until somebody comes up with a new label -- 'post-neo-Darwinian' or whatever). What you are doing is akin to saying that 'it was a sapling 150 years ago, now there's a tree -- so they must be different plants'.
  2. None of your "models" compete with the Theory of Evolution, which is in fact foundational to all these models. Therefore attempting to relegate the ToE to the same status as them is misleading.
  3. The MES was a stage in the development of the ToE -- it was an elaboration of that theory. See History of evolutionary thought for a historical context.
  4. To the best of my knowledge, your point #6 was never denied by the ToE -- the MES merely solidified what had previously been a far weaker inference. So again, this is elaboration, not competition.
  5. Nor does the MES article state 'there were other accepted accounts'.
  6. See Evolution as fact and theory.
  7. The quoted statements do not contradict the fact that scientific theories are a very specific type of model -- very powerful and very well-substantiated ones. Calling it merely a "model" is significantly understating the the scientific importance of what they are disagreeing with. And none of the quotes contradict calling the ToE a "scientific theory".
  8. Religiously motivated rejection of the ToE has been historically, and remains, the defining quality of Creationism. If this is not what they have in common, then what is?
  9. "reject naturalistic views of the origins of life" (i) conflates methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism (evolution is only naturalistic in the former sense), (ii) is a non sequitor -- all science is (methodologically) naturalistic, & (iii) misleads by omission (by omitting any indication of the depth of support it has in the scientific community).
  10. "life from non-life via natural mechanistic process" is actually Abiogenesis, which is not actually part of the ToE at all. And they reject both abiogenesis & the ToE. The latter can be seen in Creationists frequent obsession over such (generally misused) terms as Darwinism, evolutionism, etc, etc. Also creationism predates abiogenesis research, so opposition to it cannot be considered to be creationism's defining feature.
  11. You have not provided any adequate reason for rejecting "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution". You have neither provided any evidence that any creationist (let alone a sufficiently large minority to be considered in any way representative) fully accepts the ToE, nor have you provided any evidence that stating that it is a "scientific theory" is misleading, nor that any other disagreement is more fundamental to creationism.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
The section is intended to explain Creationist apologetics, right or wrong? Even if the scientific community doesn't agree? When did science become the final authority on what is Creationist and what is not? If you can put forth a suggestion that is not pointedly demeaning and stereotyping then we can move forward. Let me put it to you plainly, one does not have to fully accept the ToE to accept a model of evolution (scientific or otherwise). What you propose to say (reject the scientific theory of evolution) for those who are non-scientists sounds a lot like saying that Creationists are ignorant and irrational. Sorry, its how it sounds. You can't say ALL creationists reject the ToE, just like you can't say all Japanese people like sushi (there are many racist remarks that sound quite similar in structure). You might get away with "majority", you can say "some" but you can not rightly say "all". Do you see? Its inflammatory and demeaning to those who do accept evolution as a general premise, but disagree with aspects of its mechanics. One is not required to accept both to be said to accept "evolution" or the "the theory of evolution" as those are general statements. Your generalizations are far too broad and frankly I am tired, so I have removed the questionable content all together and suggest it stay that way until there is some compromise, a suggested fix or input from other editors. Furthermore, you keep saying Creationists when the reference of the rejection of evolution was to Old Earth Creationists as a specific sub-set. Gingabox (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the Creationism article which clearly states "In contrast to the strict creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for the nature of the biosphere, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity." and reference the notion with - "See, e.g., Corey MA (1993). "Making sense of the 'coincidences'". In MA Corey, God and the new cosmology: The anthropic design argument (pp. 157-174). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield." Is that sufficient to end the argument that all creationists do this or that? Gingabox (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. In "explain[ing] Creationist apologetics", (a WP:FRINGE, WP:Pseudoscience topic) it "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." (WP:DUE)
  2. What is or isn't "creationism" should be decided by the opinions of academic experts who study its history and development, the most prominent of whom is Ronald L. Numbers. His The Creationists makes very clear that creationism is opposition to evolution, and specifically the ToE.
  3. How is it "pointedly demeaning and stereotyping" to state that they "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" when (i) they do disagree with it & (ii) it is a "scientific theory"?
  4. "Creationists are ignorant and irrational" would in fact be a fairly accurate (if fairly blunt) articulation of the scientific community's view of creationism. Some may try to sugar coat it, and Wikipedia itself shouldn't use such blunt language (except perhaps as a direct quote).
  5. We could if (i) we have experts saying that "Japanese people like sushi", and (ii) nobody could come up with a RS stating that any of them (let alone a significant minority) didn't. We certainly wouldn't avoid saying it because a few Japanese people don't like tuna casserole.
  6. It is inflammatory and demeaning ACCURATE to state that those who only accept a neutered, impotent, scientifically-idiotic (and make no mistake about it, the claim that the current enormous species and genetic diversity could come about, from the small number of organisms that would fit on a single, bronze age vessel, in a few thousand years, would get you laughed at in any scientific setting) faux-evolution, but do not accept the "scientific theory of evolution", as not accepting that theory.
  7. This is NOT mere "aspects of its mechanics" it is THE CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY AT THE CORE OF THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY!
  8. "Evolutionary creationism" is (i) a rarely used term (most [all?] proponents of the position use the term 'Evolutionary creation') (ii) somewhat of a misnomer, as its view on science is identical to theistic evolution -- and in fact evolutionary creationism redirects to that article.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." do you notice the word strictly? The Old Earth Creationists subsection puts forth the majority view, but that does not mean that it can not include references to a minority viewpoint where relevant. There are different views with in the subset whether you agree with their premise or not. A reference to a minority view is not always an WP:UNDUE.
  2. No sir, The Creationists makes very clear that historically creationism was in "opposition to evolution, and specifically the ToE." But now see how you are changing the definitions of the words in the middle of the conversation? First, you say "In this context, "evolution" means the scientific theory of evolution" and now here you have used it as if to say it is in a different relationship, i.e. evolution is more general than the theory of evolution. This is exactly the problem with the verbiage you are choosing and why I am asking you to clarify it in the article.
  3. (i) as stated about 15 times, not all creationists do disagree with it (ii) that has no bearing on the validity of my premise.
  4. "Creationists are ignorant and irrational" would in fact be a fairly accurate (if fairly blunt) articulation of the scientific community's view of creationism." This is exactly my point, you want to paint that picture here, rather than maintaining a neutral position in the text, which is inappropriate. But, I feel you are missing the point entirely!! Please read my comment regarding this again... your wording was not neutral.
  5. I am shocked...your idea of "neutral" is completely different isn't it? Point of fact is you do not have experts who say "all creationists are anti-evolution" and there are experts who give credulity to evolutionary creationism as evidenced by other articles right here on Wikipedia.
  6. You are making a mis-characterization of the position by combining Young Earth Creationists along with Old Earth Creationists to make some kind of irrational hybrid statement which is false from the very premise. However, the point here is not whether you agree with their position or not, but what their defense of their position is which is the topic of the heading Creationist apologetics.
  7. (i) you obviously do not understand the argument which time and again is made apparent. (ii) you're confusing the topic of the article for something it is not, i.e. it is not a science article, it is an apologetics article. The opposing viewpoint can be expressed, but does not have to misrepresent the apologetic argument no matter what your bias is (iii) no need to yell about it. (iiii) I never said mere or merely which changes the meaning entirely... this is an example of the initial problem.
  8. (i) "Evolutionary Creationism" vs "Evolutionary Creation"? Seriously? Are we now knit picking the relationship between these two terms in an effort to ignore the actual argument? Please address the issue itself. (ii) they are not identical they are similar as you would note if you read the first sentence of the article you referenced. Also, if you were to read the Evolutionary Creation subheading you would see this as its first sentence and see that theologically they are different. "Evolutionary creation (also referred to by some observers as evolutionary creationism)..."

While debating is all well and good, I would appreciate if we could stop debating and start finding a way to work on the text of the article, which was the initial point. As of yet, you have not made any suggestion other than "...reject the scientific theory of evolution..." Which again is not true for all creationists as I have made abundantly clear. Your arguments have thus far been to show that you are not willing to express the idea in a neutral tone. Should we turn it over to WP:DRR or compromise?

Here is yet another suggestion for your consideration: Within Creationism, there are at least two camps. Examples of these are Strict Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism. While SC rejects the scientific theory of evolution, ECs view evolution as a tool which God used to create and shape life. EC differs from Theistic Evolution in that they view God as being more intimately involved than do most TEs. Then cite the source: [2 on the Theistic evolution page] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63 and add a scientific counter-view if you feel it necessary. Is that fair? Gingabox (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Creationism is a "tiny minority" view in the relevant academic community (i.e. the scientific community) Further, there is no reason to believe that it is even a majority view in the Christian community (see level of support for evolution, already mentioned above). And not remarking on the scientific community's views of these pseudoscientific views is indeed representing them "strictly from the perspective of the minority view".
  2. The Creationists covers up to the very recent past, with most of the recent past positions and personalities still those who dominate the issue today. You have offered no credible evidence that this has changed (let alone changed radically) in the four years since this book was published. And no, I have not changed the definition. ToE throughout.
  3. (i)Argumentum ad nauseum does not make an argument any more compelling when you have not presented a shred of evidence for the claim that you have repeated over and over and over and over again. (ii) It is the wording that you're disagreeing with -- SO OF COURSE IT HAS "BEARING"!
  4. You brought up the wording, so don't complain that I ran with it. The scientific community aren't "neutral" about creationism -- they unequivocally condemn it as utterly worthless. I was not suggesting that this language find its way into the article -- just noting that it accurately reflects the scientific community's views.
  5. We are not talking matters of opinion, but of fact (so neutrality isn't an issue). Creationists disagree with the ToE. I've got several books by experts attesting to this fact right beside my keyboard. You have not presented a single piece of substantiation of your views.
  6. No, I was citing a YEC 'neutered evolution' you yourself mentioned as an example. Whilst OEC versions of neutered evolution (Michael Behe's immediately comes to mind) may not be so blatantly idiotic, they have no more acceptance within the scientific community.
  7. (i) Oh, I perfectly understand your argument -- it is yet another attempt to trivialise the most important (and well-substantiated) scientific theory in the entire field of biology as just another "model", "aspects", etc, etc. (ii) It is an article making pseudoscientific claims about science. Therefore the scientific viewpoint is relevant. (See WP:FRINGE.) (iii) See (i).
  8. It is not "nit picking". They do not call themselves "evolutionary creationists" and do not support creationism. The only source that I know of that does call them "evolutionary creationists" goes to great pains to point out that they are not (label notwithstanding) creationists.

You have not provided a single shred of evidence why my favoured "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" is an inaccurate or misleading representation of creationist views. Nor have you provided any evidence contesting my rebuttal of your proposals. If you want the debates to stop, then either put up evidence (not mere argument by assertion) or stop debating. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have time and again provided evidence, your refusal of said evidence does not negate that it has been provided. Here is yet another: Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, writes in Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." So, if you are saying that two of the architects of the MES who consider that one can be a creationist and evolutionist as invalid evidence, then I simply have nothing left to say here as you are blatantly disregarding any such proof. Gingabox (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. You had not given even a single example of a creationist who accepts the "scientific theory of evolution". And even your new-found examples are, either highly equivocal (in the case of Dobzhansky) or unsubstantiated (in the case of Fisher). Both Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky were theistic evolutionists, not creationists. Dobzhansky's "I am a creationist and an evolutionist" is a rhetorical flourish (an apparent self-contradiction for effect). He continues "Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." The essay it is taken from repeatedly rebuts the positions of what Dobzhansky terms "anti-evolutionists" ("creationists" in the more conventional terminology). He is a "creationist" only to the extent that he accepts creation (as all TEs do), not in that he accepts creationism (a term that I will note that you haven't provided an alternative definition to 'religiously motivated anti-evolutionism'). (See for example this comment: "Creationism is not simply belief in existence of a creator, thus when Theodosius Dobzhansky described himself as a creationist, he used the term in a ihghly unusual manner") In fact Dobzhansky gets prominent mention in The Creationists as the principal sparring partner of prominent early 20th century creationist Frank Lewis Marsh. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for informal mediation. Please work with me on a way to word the statement that is not offensive to those who consider themselves creationists that do not disagree with "the scientific theory of evolution." I have no problem with stating that Christian apologists view the science in one way, while scientists view it the other, but I would appreciate if you do not want it completely one sided (i.e. "...disagree with the scientific theory of evolution. Science has found ways to explain...") Gingabox (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name "Christian apologetics"

[edit]

First of all I have to mention that I am agnostic and aren't a big friend of Catholicism and Evangelists. Still the phrase "Christian apologetics" sounds very judgmental to me. Shouldn't a Wikipedia-article use the name they give themselves as name of the article? Jschoder (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name they give to themselves. They call themselves 'Christians' (no big surprise) and call what they do 'apologetics' -- thus 'Christian apologetics' (to distinguish it from apologetics, more generally). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above reinforces the objection raised by the choice of language used: 'they' and 'themselves'. I note that it doesn't say "It is the name we've chosen for ourselves". The premise of the article suggests that Christianity is something to be apologized for. Perhaps the meaning of the word apologetics has changed over the centuries, but in modern parlance it certainly casts a negative light on the topic right from the title on down, and indeed reflects the anti-Christian bias of the author. G.K. Chesterton talks about what Christianity is, and what it isn't; there wasn't a scrap of apology in him. Others may call him an apologist, but they would be wrong. He simply called himself "Christian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.109.6 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "apologetics" and "apologist" are standard in the Christian community. -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the confusion here is over the fact that the word 'apologetics' sounds similar to and is based on the same roots as the word 'apology'. 'Apology' connotes regret or remorse. The etymology of the words suggests that the original meaning of the roots did not have this connotation.[1][2] -- 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjwgarner (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apology etymology
  2. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

As others have said, you are ignorant of Greek/Latin and are defining terms that are thousands of years old by their current usage. 'apology' is originally from Greek and doesn't mean to express sorrow but is rather a defense against critics. http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#ἀπολογία Science, religion, politicians, etc. all engage in "apologetics" although they don't usually use the term. The use in Christianity is traditional, ignoring the semantic shift with the word "apology" in 21st century widespread-ignorance-of-Greek-and-Latin roots English. If you had studied Latin and Greek, you wouldn't have been ignorant of this. I blame the modern education system, not you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution

[edit]

It should be remembered that unlike (Christian) creationism (which is pervasively Christian apologetics), not all (Christian) Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation writing is defending Christianity against other worldviews -- a lot of it is defending science against creationism. Most probably most TE writers do both, but care needs to be taken to place emphasis on the former in the context of this article (unlike Theistic Evolution, which should cover both aspects). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian polemic

[edit]

I frequently have recourse to modern scholarship that deals with the Church Fathers as sources for the religious practices of antiquity. These theological efforts to debunk traditional belief systems are more often referred to specifically as "Christian polemic" rather than the broader "Christian apologetics." The term "Christian polemic" is also used for apologetics driven by criticism of Judaism and Islam. Therefore, I've added a sentence explaining the term "Christian polemic" as it relates to the more general term "Christian apologetics," polemic being the mode of apologetics that uses the rhetoric of attack, as indicated by the Latin titles of various patristic treatises using the words contra and adversus. I see a tag requesting a citation, for some reason, for the statement that Tertullian, Jerome, et al. (Augustine is bizarrely omitted) were Christian apologists; some of the Fathers have works specifically titled Apologia, and I'm not sure why this bare statement is subject to challenge. According to WP:V, citations are required for content likely to be challenged. I wonder whether some editors are focused on modern controversies such as evolution to the diminishment of documenting the history of the genre of Christian literature known as "apologetics." I don't think this article is the place for hashing out evolution vs. creationism, or any of the arguments themselves, but rather for describing the genre or mode of discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has deleted this sentence. Please discuss. As noted, I find the term "Christian polemic" often used by scholars to denote a particular mode of apologetics. The Church Fathers themselves frame this type of writing as a systematic debunking, undermining, or attack on the religious traditions of what they called "pagans," an inaccurate umbrella term for various belief systems in antiquity. There's nothing particularly controversial about it; early Christians felt that it was their sacred duty to inform others of what they regarded as the truth of Christianity contra what they saw as the debased beliefs of, say, the Romans. There's also such as thing as anti-Christian polemic. This search indicates that "Christian polemic" as well as "anti-Christian polemic" occur within scholarly discourse on apologetics. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given used the term "Christian polemic" but did not support the SYNTHy definition "Christian polemic is a rhetorical mode of apologetics primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems." -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "polemic" certainly gets used, but it's essentially a value judgement. If A calls B's writing polemic(al), it expresses A's belief that B is primarily attacking someone/something and/or being aggressive. By the nature of things, there is no scholarly consensus that any specific writing is polemic(al), nor is there a clear genre or mode that could be called Christian polemic. You might be able to find sources that would back up a statement like "some writers believe that certain examples of Christian apologetics constitute polemic." -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "might" about it. Please do a search limited to exact phrase "Christian polemic" and "university" as the publisher and see for yourself. I needed the sentence because I often need to link to a description of "Christian polemic." You may be thinking only in contemporary terms: I'm thinking historically. The article as it stands is quite thin on the historical genre of apologetics among the Church Fathers. Instead, it focuses on contemporary controversies, which is not really what apologetics has been historically as a genre of Christian writing. There are major literary works by Augustine, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius and others that are indeed polemical, and that the authors themselves intended to be attacks on what they called paganism. Remember that the full title of De civitate Dei is even City of God Against the Pagans. These intellectual, well-written works are often given titles such as Apologeticum or Adversus Gentes expressly (adversus means "against"). It is not a "value" judgment; a value judgment would be whether these works are good or bad, dumb or smart, effective or ineffective, or worth reading. it's a statement of the purpose of the works. The writers themselves stated their purpose as attacking false religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put this back, with additional sources that could go on endlessly. "Synth" occurs when sources are put together to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There's a difference between "synth" and summarizing: the sources all discuss Christian polemic as a mode of criticism or attack. Of course all apologetics isn't polemic, and that is not what the statement says; but the claim that there is no such thing as Christian polemic requires a source that argues that it's incorrect or misleading to label this rhetorical mode "polemic," since scholars obviously use the phrase to mean that. The alternative wording offered here is essentially a claim that some scholars say there is no polemical mode within the tradition of Christian apologetics. If such scholars exist, please cite them. Otherwise, this edit is a non-neutral POV that Christian apologetics is never polemical, without attribution to a source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Christian polemic exists, and your sources support that; but none of your sources seem to support the claim that it is primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems -- that would be a hypothesis about the motivations of authors which none of your sources support (City of God is a good example -- it contains, in my personal opinion, polemical chapters, but it is not generally considered as primarily concerned with criticism or attack). I have reworded to be (I hope) a little clearer. -- 202.124.73.83 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given certainly didn't support the previous definition, and even the current definition is a little dubious. Inferring a definition from multiple uses of a word is WP:SYNTH. You would be better off relying on a definition of "polemic." -- 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the disputed text as polemics isn't a branch of apologetics and contrary to the definition of apologetics in the article (out of scope). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreland and MacArthur

[edit]

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ] I noticed you had removed the update that I made concerning the debate between old earth and young earth creationists. The reason why I added this paragraph was to explain that though there is a debate with the creationist community over how they believe God made creation, they do not debate on whether or not God created everything. I provided links and footnotes as verification, while showing a similarity in the Christian apologetic community with that of the naturalist community that differing opinions do not necessarily mean differing stances. My fear is that currently, while reading the Creationist Apologetics subcategory, the implication stands that there are two camps that completely disagree on this issue and thus the entirety of the Christian Creationist Apologetic, even if there is truth in one of those camps, is not to be taken seriously because it is seems to imply that both camps are in a strong disagreement with little common ground. My paragraph was intended to show that in most, if not all of the other issues the two camps are united but that this is just one point of disagreement, and that as with any science this can be healthy to discuss.

Is it then wrong to demonstrate the unity of the camps on most issues and the common thread between the two so as not to make it sound like they are from two completely different views? I am not trying to further an agenda, but rather explain this issue accurately so that the issue can be seriously discussed. If it is okay to add this information, how can I word it in such a way that it does not sound like I am not doing original research? Also, what other sources or information would I need to add to make this more credible? I have quotes from apologists such as Hank Hanegraaff concerning the debate between the two camps and that Christians should not divide over the issue but rather discuss it to come closer to truth. If that would help, I would gladly add it.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and feel I have a lot to contribute to this website. That said, I also have a lot to learn. Seeing as that you have edited several works in the past on this site, I want your input and want to work with you and with others on this site to help make it all that it can and should be. Thanks again for your time and patience, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRHolmes86 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Discussions of articles belong on article talk. (ii) If you want to avoid WP:Synthesis, you need to avoid any claims, implications or conclusions that aren't explicitly in the stated sources. If you want to compare Moreland and MacArthur, you need a source that makes this comparison. If you want to state "Both would be considered 'theologically sound' teachers of the Christian faith" you need a (third party) source that states that about them. And you are wrong that "there is no tangible way at the moment to verify either of their theories" -- the age of the Earth is well-established science. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Apologetics or Evolutionary Apologetics?

[edit]

Just glanced over the Scientific Apologetics section and it seems misnamed. It's not talking about science but evolution. I'm not aware of any scientists YEC, OEC, whatever, claiming there to be a conflict, it's about how, or whether, to reconcile the Bible and evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Evolution is science. (ii) It goes well beyond evolution into uniformitarian geology, the Age of the Earth and Cosmology -- a fairly large chunk of science. (iii) YEC isn't science, it's pseudoscience (as is much of OEC). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon but, how is this related to the above? You addressed not a single one of his concerns. 23.16.125.160 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sproul quote

[edit]

Could somebody please explain to me how the Sproul quote relates to the rest of the 'Biblical motivation section -- he appears to neither be discussing a biblical basis for the motivation to engage in apologetics (rather he is talking about a motivation to defend the scripture) and is not discussing any of the quoted biblical viewpoint given in the rest of the section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian apologetics is generally defined as "the rational defence of the Christian faith." In fact, that's the subtitle of Sproul's 1984 book Classical Apologetics. The Sproul quote, which embeds a quote from 1 Peter 3:15, argues a Biblical motivation for this. However, the whole section needs a rewrite to have apologists quoting Scripture, not just Scripture on its own. -- 202.124.74.157 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proportion that is a direct quote is actually quite small, and at the end of both the passages. It might therefore be less confusing to characterise this rather differently -- it is actually more of a paraphrase than a quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He makes a statement which includes a quote. I think that's fairly clear. -- 202.124.73.115 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the quote is only a small portion of the statement, to describe the statement as a quote is misleading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "says...quoting" fits the situation quite well. Since both quotes are given, there is no ambiguity. -- 202.124.72.164 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading List

[edit]

I'm going to be doing a source clean up here in a few days to get rid of the style template that someone just tagged this with. Do we really need a long list if we have a link to a wikipedia article that contains the same list? Does anyone have a problem with me weeding that list down a bit, maybe to just general / intro apologetics resources?

What say you?ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sceince: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old

[edit]

I tweaked the following to be much more mathematically accurate: Young Earth Creationists believe that Earth is ~6,000 years-old... Science: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section

[edit]

Because of the nature of this article immediately pertaining to theological debate, it would seem that links to other articles such as Criticisms of Christianity, Origin theories of Christianity, Atheistic apologetics, and similar would be in order. Were I more familiar with wikimarkup I would do so myself, because of the trivial difficulty of the addition; as is, I am left to call on a more experienced editor to add this section. 66.233.132.60 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleting references.

[edit]

¬¬¬¬whoever is deleting my reference to rational wiki please stop or I will report you to the wiki admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove sentence about Christian polemics

[edit]

Polemics is not a part of Christian theology, though some have used it as a pejorative reference to apologetics. This also appears to have been added despite opposition and a lack of consensus. Propose to remove the following:

Christian polemics is a branch of apologetics advocating for the correctness of the Christian belief system, while discrediting every other contradictory belief system.[5][6]

01:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs)

This dispute is evidently ongoing, although the exact phrase in contention seems to be shifting every time it is removed and put back in. I find the emphasis a little odd, given that the topic of "Christian polemics" is not so distinctive as to warrant its own article or even subheading under the main polemics article as of this writing. The current phrasing suggests that '… polemics is a part of philosophical theology,' but this is a very sloppy usage of the cited reference, which, after quoting a theologian who argues that, immediately follows up with, "this division … is unsatisfactory." It furthermore argues: "It is … a question whether polemics belongs to the special departments of dogmatics, ethics, or practical theology, or whether it constitutes an independent branch of study. … polemics is applied dogmatics … [and] … applied symbolics." Furthermore, the claim is nowhere reproduced on the linked page. Instead, I suspect the intention (after several back and forth edits removing good faith edits) is to suggest an equivalence between the two disciplines, which would not be deemed fair or satisfactory to all interested parties. If included, I would suggest a sentence that clarifies that the subjects are distinct. Radiotradition (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Radiotradition, your assessment above is an accurate one. I think you fairly make the case that there is no evidence for the existance of a noteworthy practice called 'Christian polemics". The mention of "Christian polemics" as though it were something of note is not established. This is contrary to the WP policy of the policy given in WP:UNDUE - undue weight.
KSci (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible sourcing:

[edit]

Article relies on very bad sources mostly. Neutral third party sources should be sought and to rely as little as possible on Christian Apologists themselves. The third party sources then dictate which apologetic arguments and writers are notable and relevant, rather than just finding random apologetists themselves as sources. And more reliance on high quality academic books. Also dictionary sources are to be avoided if possible.

Article generally needs to have much of it re-written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christian apologetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence?

[edit]

I think the current lede sentence sourced to Catholic encyclopedia is quite misleading: a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections, if the article is to cover polemics. I think this describes the modern Christian apologetic faith literature, which contains discussion like But what of the Church herself, she who has preserved the truths revealed and enacted by Christ[1] However, based on scholarly sources, the apologetic writers engaged in a considerable amount of polemic (especially against Jews and Muslims).[2][3][4]

And would we deal with anti-Christian polemic like this briefly in this article for balance? (The details would have to go in a separate article.)[5]

References

  1. ^ Markos, Louis (2010-10-06). Apologetics for the Twenty-first Century. Crossway. ISBN 978-1-4335-2465-3.
  2. ^ Davis, Stephen J. (2014-05-13). Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20660-9.
  3. ^ Schoenfeld, Devorah (2013). Isaac On Jewish and Christian Altars:Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria: Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria. Fordham Univ Press. ISBN 978-0-8232-4349-5.
  4. ^ Ingram, Anders (2015-07-24). Writing the Ottomans: Turkish History in Early Modern England. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40153-3.
  5. ^ Bonfil, Robert (2011-10-14). Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-20355-6.

Why do Catholics call the priests father

[edit]

Why do priests father William Dalton jr (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Varieties" section is not logically organized

[edit]

Here's the first paragraph of the "Varieties" section as it stands:

"There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics."

As far as I can tell, this classification was pulled out of thin air. There is no reputable, authoritative source cited that uses this classification. It just sounds like someone listed as many different types of Christian apologetics as they could think of off the top of their head.

Moreover, it is what logicians call a cross-classification: Some of the categories listed belong underneath one another rather than as separate categories. For example, moral apologetics is obviously a sub-category of philosophical apologetics rather than a coordinate genus, as illustrated by the fact that the moral argument is repeated in the section on philosophical apologetics. In addition, many practitioners of philosophical apologetics include historical and scientific arguments as an integral part of their case, and historical and scientific arguments for Christianity are virtually always made in conjunction with philosophical reasoning.

This entire section should be reorganized. The first step would be to find a source like the book "Five Views of Apologetics" and use that as an authoritative basis for classification, with (probably) a miscellaneous section at the end for arguments that don't fit neatly into any of the indicated categories. Torin11 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Christian apologetic" a pejorative term?

[edit]

First off, is it "Christian apologetic" or "Christian apologist"?

Generally it refers to "someone who defends the Christianity". So would that mean only people who engage in debate? Asherkobin (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An "apologetic" is the writing or idea being espoused. An "apologist" is the person who does the writing. Vyselink (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_apologetics&oldid=1255173287"